Jacoby, Picture Imperfect (ii) (2005)

Chapters 2-4 & Epilogue

In Chapter 2, Jacoby argues that violence comes not from utopia, but from the end of utopia. With this, he attempts to show through situated and biographical readings of the 'anti-utopians' in Western philosophy, how their refusal of utopia stemmed from the political collapses of their time. Beginning with More's own turn from Utopia to potential totalitarian beliefs. Jacoby argues that it is 'with More, or through More, we can see the emergence of modern anti-utopianism' (48). However, Jacoby is adamant to insist that More's changing opinion of utopia was deeply embedded in the political climate of the times, namely the religious and political changes occurring in the 16th Century Reformation which argues Jacoby, led to More feeling 'a sense of betrayed utopian hopes' (49). Jacoby goes on to suggest that it is this quality of living through a dream 'gone amuck' (50) that is an important aspect of the anti-utopians. Jacoby then turns to what he describes as a 'liberal anti-utopian consensus' (50) typified by the writings of Popper, Talman, Arendt, and Berlin. Tracing through what Jacoby identifies as their similarities (from dates of birth to experiences of war, communism), Jacoby highlights how their experiences of communism forever tainted how they saw fascism, 'the latter was viewed through the lens of the former' (52). What Jacoby seems to be suggesting in this chapter then is that anti-utopianism stems from disappointment in the outcome of utopia. These writers turn from utopia from a disappointment, and assume that utopia becomes exhausted by the failure of communism.

In Chapters 3 and 4, Jacoby attempts to outline what an iconoclastic utopianism might mean through turning to Judaism. 'The Jewish tradition gave rise to what might be called an iconoclastic utopianism - an anti-utopian utopianism that resisted blueprints' (85). These chapters do not seem particularly important to read too closely at this point, suffice it to say that he wants to argue for the sustaining impulse to dream the future as stemming from a refusal to picture what it might exactly look like. He also makes it clear in this chapter that he sees utopianism as essential: 'a world without utopian longings is forlorn. For society as well as for the individual, it means to journey without a compass' (143).

In the Epilogue, he attempts to tease out the contradition in utopia between present-day struggle and future dreaming. Jacoby argues that utopia necessarily tries to keep a distance from the day-to-day otherwise 'it would forfeit its own commitment to a realm beyond the immediate choices' (145). However, he also says that the opposite is also true, that utopianism 'emerges out of and returns to contemporary political realities' (146). He argues that this is the defining contradiction of the utopian project, 'it partakes at once of the limited choices of the day and the unlimited possibilities of the morrow. It straddles two time zones: the one we inhabit now and the one that might exist in the future' (146). He connects this to the style of More's Utopia, as it is written in two books. Jacoby highlights that we need to find a way to connect utopian thinking with the everyday and he seems to suggest starting from the negative. We may not know what the 'end of racism' will look like, but we know we want it to end, 'utopian wishes need to be situated against something' (148). Jacoby argues that while utopian wishes may indeed be dependent on a negation, they go beyond this negation to keep 'an ear, if not an eye, on the future' (149).

Jacoby, Picture Imperfect (i) (2005)

Preface and Chapter 1

Jacoby, like many utopian scholars, attempts to distinguish two versions of utopia. He calls the two currents of utopian thought, the 'blue print tradition' and the 'iconoclastic tradition' (xiv). They are distinguishable in that the blue print tradition is content-driven, outlining what utopia might/should look like, down to small details such as eating etiquette, dress, etc. He wants to distance his project from this rigid understanding of utopia and instead embrace those iconoclastic utopians, 'those who dreamt of a superior society but who declined to give its precise measurements' (xv). In this sense he alligns himself with Bloch, in that he is more interested in a utopian impulse or spirit.

Jacoby sets out to attempt to explain why he thinks 'the utopian vision has flagged' through a three part hyphothesis: the collapse of communism, the assumed connection between utopians and totalitarians, and an impoverished Western imagination (5). While pointing to his inability to add much to the fall of communism other than to suggest a wholesale rejection of all thinking connected to communism need not be thrown out tout court, Jacoby's main concerns is to splinter utopia from its connotation as necessarily totalitarian or, in other words, as a path to dystopia. He argues that utopia/dystopia is a false dichotomy, pointing to how dystopia has been seen as the necessary outcome of utopia, thereby emptying utopia itself. He provides a rich review of the most famous dystopian novels (1984, Animal Farm, Brave New World) to argue for their critiques of totalitarianism, rather than utopia. He further traces through the many publications, mostly focused on Nazism and genocide, that take utopia and totalitarianism to be necessarily yoked together. Jacoby argues that it is not utopian designs that lead to war, violence, and genocide but rather ethnic, religious, or nationalist agendas. Second, Jacoby argues that the position of imagination in both utopia and totalitarianism further cleaves them from one another. While imagination is integral to utopia, it threatens totalitarianism. However, Jacoby diagnoses a contemporary impoverishment of imagination. His concept of imagination links it to childhood, a space which he argues sustains imagination. He points to contemporary childhood as being 'colonized' by television, boredom, and the toy market which has created 'less inclination - and perhaps fewer resources - for utopian dreaming' (30).

Jacoby wants to insist on moving away from blue print utopias: 'The blueprints not only appear repressive, they also rapidly become outdated' (32). I think this part is interesting because it belies his belief in a universal tradition, like Bloch. He also emphasizes that the iconoclastic utopians held on to what could potentially be categorized as utopian affects: 'harmony, leisure, peace, and pleasure' (33). He is also keen to suggest that the Jewishness of these iconoclastic utopians may have something to do with their refusal of images, their resistance to drawing out their utopias. Further, he remarks that the refusal to sketch out utopia 'refuses to reduce the unknown future to the well-known present, the hope to its cause' (36). He wants to insist on utopia as no-place and I am wary of this tendency to agree with a universal utopian tendency that manages to free itself from particular presents.